2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) for the Community). However, even where such instruments are available, implementation is often constrained by factors such as the availability of capacity and resources. A large majority of interviewees indicated that one approach to overcome this problem would be to develop a Community emergency team to assist the Commission in supporting MS in phytosanitary matters relating to certain plant pests. Such a team has already been developed in the area of animal health (Commission Decision 2007/142/EC 155 ). Such a team would foresee the provision of: 1) scientific, technical and managerial on-the-spot assistance as regards the surveillance, monitoring, control and eradication of the diseases; 2) specific scientific advice on suitable diagnostic methods and epidemiological investigations; 3) specific assistance to ensure coordination among the concerned services, at national and Community levels. Contingency plans are also been seen as effective instruments for rapid intervention against outbreaks of new HOs. These contingency plans could include available information from the Commission, EPPO publications and would be based on the latest scientific evidence. In addition to standards on Phytosanitary Measures which provide relevant guidance for eradication actions to NPPOs, EPPO has drafted standard Generic elements for contingency plans (PM 9/10 (1)) that should help NPPOs to draft pest-specific contingency plans for important pests. The preparation of a contingency plan is very important in order to be able to respond rapidly to an outbreak situation, in particular when this requires cooperation between many parties. The EPPO standard describes 12 essential elements to be addressed in a contingency plan 156 . Drafting a contingency plan is helpful for a quick and effective response and nowadays many countries are drafting contingency plans for important pests. These also in themselves serve to increase awareness and cooperation amongst all stakeholders through the process of developing the plans. Many uncertainties for successful eradication remain however due to biological, economical and logistical factors. It is very important to identify the most critical factors for successful eradication and develop tools to support decision-making before and during the eradication process. 155 Commission Decision 2007/142/EC establishing a Community Veterinary Emergency Team to assist the Commission in supporting MS and third countries in veterinary matters relating to certain animal diseases. 156 These elements (EPPO standard Generic elements for contingency plans) are: background information (biology of the pest, symptoms, detection, pathways, etc.); initiation of plan when the pest is detected and information which should be gathered at this stage official actions on presumptive diagnosis official actions to eradicate after final confirmation review of measures in case of prolonged action completion of statutory action considering the reliability of verification command structure (at strategic, tactical and operational level) stakeholder consultation internal communication external communication and value of awareness campaigns testing and training of personnel evaluation and revision of contingency plan Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 146
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) For the majority of the interviewees, one major difficulty with the adoption of emergency measures is that a PRA is needed, which ideally requires cases within Europe to determine appropriate control measures (e.g. Anoplophora chinensis imported from China - this issue is also discussed in section 3.4.11). Thus the main difficulty is linked to the knowledge of the HO and its behaviour in the European context, and lack of timely reporting action may accentuate the time delays. The effectiveness of emergency measures experienced with e.g. PWN, red palm weevil and Diabrotica virgifera demonstrates that emergency measures do not work when they are adopted too late. For eradication to be effective, radical measures have to be taken from the start, however, this requires that timely actions are taken. Interviewees have reported that too often the development of PRAs takes too much time due to resources and capacity limits in the different MS, and it therefore takes too long to establish the probability and level of risk. When new findings occur, instead of leaving emergency PRAs to MS, it might be preferable to have a Community wide emergency PRA (fast track EU PRA) 157 as a starting point, which could be linked to a 3-5 years development program to complete the first draft with biological, epidemiological and economic data. A ‗fast track PRA‘ could be done by relying on existing evidence (e.g. EPPO, MS PRAs). The problem with PRAs carried out by MS is the limited scope of the PRA from an EU viewpoint. Most MS complete a PRA focussing on the scope of risks in their territory. Additionally, experts should be listed and funding granted to secure coordination and delivery in the development of a more complete assessment. Following the PRA approach on a more systematic basis would imply dedicating more resources to the body that would be in charge of this task (the PH Panel of the EFSA are currently in charge of conducting PRAs). Most of the interviewees and the majority of the stakeholders consider that MS should more actively share information about their experience concerning the eradication campaigns, that will allow other MS with similar problems to learn from their experience and then react faster and more effectively. For example, the EPPO workshop organised in February 2009 in Nova Gorica (SI) on eradication, containment and contingency plans is being seen by most of the interviewees as a positive approach to exchange information and ideas between MS. Regular similar workshops should be organised. A major point coming out of the interviews is that the current legislation focuses too much and too long on eradication measures, even in cases of advanced spread and where natural spread has been shown to constitute a major factor 158 . This has been explained by the fact that moving to control measures may necessitate the development of Council Control Directives, which is considered too long a process. In such cases, it is considered more appropriate to accept that – at least for a determined period of time - eradication is a ‗lost‘ cause and to tailor measures for containment. Although the availability of eradication plans is useful in the early phases of outbreak to slow down the spread of this type of HO, it is considered they should be more rapidly replaced by containment measures as spread advances. 157 This is already the case for emergency measures. 158 The effectiveness of the CPHR to stop natural spread, including the emergency measure taken in the case of PWN and Diabrotica virgifera, has been assessed in section 3.1.1. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 147
Page 1 and 2:
I European Commission Directorate G
Page 3 and 4:
Expert Team Agra CEAS Consulting: D
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
7. Implementation of control and em
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 131 and 132: Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 159 and 160: 3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 179: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 231 and 232:
PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Options (most recommended) 6.Emerge
show all

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?